SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)
AMD 236.51+5.8%10:12 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: eracer who wrote (215208)10/27/2006 10:29:07 AM
From: DDB_WORead Replies (1) of 275872
 
eracer - I believe you also "proved" that AMD's SOI process is broken with your apples-to-banjos comparison. Intel CPUs topped out out 3.8GHz, AMD at only 3GHz so far. Therefore Intel would be able to clock an ATI integrated GPU 25% faster than AMD even without SOI.

First you blame an apples-to-banjos comparison, then you try your own.. was that just a taste of irony or did you really think, that only the process is responsible for reachable clock rates at given TDPs?

Irony or not, there is a thing called pipeline, which even exists in GPUs. And besides what the offered transistor performance and the resulting FO4 delay of a given process is, still a big part of final performance and performance/watt results depends on the implementation of an architecture at different levels. You also forgot the fast ALUs in Netburst CPUs, running at twice the core clock. So the GPUs coming from Intel would be 2.5 times as fast as the ones from AMD according to your calculation ;)

It's difficult to say, how fast a K8 would run, if produced in TSMC's foundry process. I'd guesstimate something in the ballpark of 1.6-2GHz for the same TDP if the design would be adapted to the other process.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext